The consumer rights group WHICH used to do with panels that for various skincare creams (maybe still does) and it would always end hilariously with people rating the cheap end products more effective than the high priced crap. I've seen blind tests done with self-professed wine snobs for wines too and oh, the horror when they find out they declared a £10 bottle better than the £100 one. Always a chuckle!
Sali Hughes #32 Here's one moisturiser, now piss off.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Sali Hughes Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I’d buy the Graun for that.
Reader panels and blind testing would be 100% better than any of the current beauty content in The Guardian. I'd love to see that happen.
The difference between the below posts and Sali’s latest Guardian column? Surely just the word “AD”?
And this at the other end of the selling hierarchy. #MLM
And this at the other end of the selling hierarchy. #MLM
Last edited:
Basically everything she puts online now is a shill in some form or another. Who would have thought after her shrill hysteria because people were questioning her integrity. Again, parody.
At best she’s descended to the laziest kind of beauty journalism that she said she hated so much - simply regurgitating the latest press release. But things are more complex now that she is also a influencer, paid directly by brands to sell.
She’d say she wasn’t paid for this by The Body Shop, but obviously longer term deals can be done. The Guardian should be concerned about this, but I doubt they care these days.
She’d say she wasn’t paid for this by The Body Shop, but obviously longer term deals can be done. The Guardian should be concerned about this, but I doubt they care these days.
If it's advertorial masquerading as journalism, it's probably a matter for the Independent Press Standards Organisation: http://www.ipso.co.uk/ and the Advertising Standards Authority: http://www.asa.org.uk/So her column is basically an advertorial?I feel a complaint to the guardian might be in order...
Unless you're certain payment has been made for mention in column any complaint will look vexatious and confirm the troll narrative.
I don't think SH is impartial, I think her reccomending stuff from companies she has commercial or "press sample" relationships with is unethical. But I don't think anything as crass or simplistic as payment for inclusion in the column is happening. I'd be very wary of making such accusations especially to official organisations with no proof whatsoever. Your mmv but I think you'd be wasting the time of the organisation to raise a complaint on a hunch.
There are certainly dots to be joined re the inclusion of an Avon produce - not a brand that usually features - in the weeks or so prior to her podcast being launched. The inclusion of the Cornish Sea Salt thing from a company that later gave and her "girls" a Cornish mini break. The reccomendation of Skin + Me - PR by one Jo Jones. Hersheson hairdryer included in a column. There is a clear lack of transparency and failure to declare current/past commercial relationships.
The disclosures at the end of Jo Jones columns on some unknown website are better than SH's disclosing.
flockmag.com
I don't really understand how you can be doing PR for a brand and not see doing a column recommending their product as a conflict of interest. You clearly have a professional interest in the brand doing well, even if you're not paid/required to include in your column.
I don't think SH is impartial, I think her reccomending stuff from companies she has commercial or "press sample" relationships with is unethical. But I don't think anything as crass or simplistic as payment for inclusion in the column is happening. I'd be very wary of making such accusations especially to official organisations with no proof whatsoever. Your mmv but I think you'd be wasting the time of the organisation to raise a complaint on a hunch.
There are certainly dots to be joined re the inclusion of an Avon produce - not a brand that usually features - in the weeks or so prior to her podcast being launched. The inclusion of the Cornish Sea Salt thing from a company that later gave and her "girls" a Cornish mini break. The reccomendation of Skin + Me - PR by one Jo Jones. Hersheson hairdryer included in a column. There is a clear lack of transparency and failure to declare current/past commercial relationships.
The disclosures at the end of Jo Jones columns on some unknown website are better than SH's disclosing.
Jo Jones’ brutally honest beauty: personalised skincare - The Flock
Skin+Me’s personalised, prescription service is intriguing. The question is, can one product tame the excesses of a true beauty junkie?
flockmag.com
I don't really understand how you can be doing PR for a brand and not see doing a column recommending their product as a conflict of interest. You clearly have a professional interest in the brand doing well, even if you're not paid/required to include in your column.
Last edited:
@Mselvista is probably right. The whole thing is so murky and leaves a really bad taste in the mouth but she possibly/probably hasn't done anything technically wrong. It is deeply unethical and cynical imo but not *wrong*.
I would like to know why the whole column was that one product rather than being included alongside the other two recommendations she normally makes? That was wierd.
I just feel a bit sick by the way her whole column was an Ad dressed up as a trip down memory lane. She must think we are all fools.
Her hatred of here must have really touched a nerve. Here and the comments under the column were the only places questioning these things. She got the column stopped and tried to get here too. Hence all the entirely false accusations of stalking and racism. Far more palatable for her than the truth.
I would like to know why the whole column was that one product rather than being included alongside the other two recommendations she normally makes? That was wierd.
I just feel a bit sick by the way her whole column was an Ad dressed up as a trip down memory lane. She must think we are all fools.
Her hatred of here must have really touched a nerve. Here and the comments under the column were the only places questioning these things. She got the column stopped and tried to get here too. Hence all the entirely false accusations of stalking and racism. Far more palatable for her than the truth.
Apologies for sounding so po faced but a number complaints that turn out to be unfounded (because technically nothing wrong with what she's done) will just be more fuel for her narrative of being unfairly bullied by a bunch of mental trolls.
You're quite correct. I wouldn't make formal accusations when I can't substantiate them, though I do feel that this situation is repeatedly dodgy as duck. Where is the line drawn between someone's personal Instagram account and the Guardian's content? It looks like the answer is "nowhere" and that doesn't reflect well on The Guradian. It makes them seem either complicit, or so slapdash that journalists declaring paid partnerships isn't even on their radar.
The Guardian do not give a rats ass as long as they can make money from affiliate links
I think that's exactly the case.
Has anyone seen this?
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000v489
Might have been mentioned on other threads. It's overly simplistic and of course the troll has a sad life. It's doesn't present the situation as black and white though.
Attachments
On a lighter note, does Sali know Callie Thorpe used the phrase PRETTY ICONIC???
after the cover illustration rip-off palaver, I shudder to think what form of disapprobation awaits Ms Thorpe.
after the cover illustration rip-off palaver, I shudder to think what form of disapprobation awaits Ms Thorpe.
That's what instantly stood out to me. Normally it would be 'Five High Street Body Butters' or 'Five Luxurious Body Moisturizers' or some such tit.
She took somewhere like PopSugar to task on Twitter for using "Pretty Honest" for a podcast or youtube series ages ago.
Far far far too early but perfect thread title
yeah it’s kinda perfectFar far far too early but perfect thread title
You and @Mselvista make very good points, which I totally agree with. It felt suspicious because the whole column was about one product which has also been gifted to other influencers, but there’s nothing to say she was paid to write it. I’ve asked for my comment to be deleted.
I think your suggestion of a complaint to The Guardian is perfectly justified, @RibenaBerry. SH doesn’t need to have been paid directly by the brand for this piece for readers to feel that it sinks below any attempt at decent journalism.
- Status